Dulwich Hill Bicycle Club

In the latest Ride mag they cover the bikes of the firm that does their printing. One guy has an old Cannondale circa 1992. He was lent a newer Cannondale for a couple of weeks, and claims it cut his best Bobbin head time from 2:02 to 1:53 even though he was riding the brakes on the new bike so as not to risk a fall.

Now this surely can't be possible - I know a new bike (or wheels or other bling) is worth extra time because you =expect= it to be quicker, but I would have thought as long as both bikes fit properly, the difference on a 2 hour ride might be something similar to a minute at most, due to the newer bike's lighter weight?

Cheers,
Alan W

In the latest Ride mag they cover the bikes of the firm that does their printing.

Just as an aside, that firm is Web Star, the printing arm of Blue Star, the company that Joanne works for. The woman in the issue with the Orbea Diva (Tanya Boric) is one of Jo's staff on the St George Bank account. So Jo would have been in this issue too except we were in France so she couldn't put in the plug for DHBC!

Well submitting an article that says that the new Cannondale makes no difference over the old Cannondale doesn't sell any Mags (or any Cannondales) does it? - These days it's hard to tell what is editorial content, and what is veiled advertizing, but I've always been a cycnic... There's going to be some degree of gilding the lily here to keep the sponsor happy no doubt.

Incedentally, I am currently building up a Colnago Super from 1992 with an original 1992 Campy Record gruppo - mostly brand new parts. I'll then be in a position to do this test myself, albeit in reverse. Anyone want to write an article on it?

Just as an aside, that firm is Web Star, the printing arm of Blue Star, the company that Joanne works for. The women in the issue with the Orbea Diva (Tanya Boric) is one of Jo's staff on the St George Bank account. So Jo would have been in this issue too except we were in France so she couldn't put in the plug for DHBC!

I reckon a RIDE story on DHBC and associated bikes would be a good read. Although "here is my fixie that cost $200 all up" mightn't sell too many new $7k bikes!

Cheers,
Alan W

Well submitting an article that says that the new Cannondale makes no difference over the old Cannondale doesn't sell any Mags (or any Cannondales) does it? - These days it's hard to tell what is editorial content, and what is veiled advertizing, but I've always been a cycnic... There's going to be some degree of gilding the lily here to keep the sponsor happy no doubt.

Incedentally, I am currently building up a Colnago Super from 1992 with an original 1992 Campy Record gruppo - mostly brand new parts. I'll then be in a position to do this test myself, albeit in reverse. Anyone want to write an article on it?

Yes I think if I were lent a $7k bike for a few weeks I'd probably feel obligated to say something nice about it!

Some properly objective testing of 1992 colnago versus state of the art carbon technology would be interesting. Maybe timed laps around Centennial park to see what the time difference (if any) is?

Cheers,
Alan

You will go faster if you feel better. Define and standardise "feel".

Good skeptics know that measurements will vary between days even when using the same equipment.

I haven't yet read the circumstances of the "test", but I wouldn't read too much into it. Maybe he was overly conscious of brake use because he wanted to test the feel of the new levers, or the modulation of the calipers? Mmm, modulation. Maybe he was distracted by riding a different bike so that he didn't realise he had such good legs? Maybe the wind was different?

For these reasons, I guess I probably wouldn't be too surprised if he'd gone out that day on a very old vintage bike (like Toff's ... ) and beaten his regular time.

Now this surely can't be possible

I (that is ME) would never go to press with this sort of claim using a road circuit as my way of testing. There's so many variables that I think it would tell you very little.

Here's what I'd do. I'd book Dunc Grey for 2 sessions over 2 days. I'd do a top to toe on the rider recording all measurements from the old bike. Put a heart rate monitor on him and do perhaps a 10km time trial where the rider stays to a heart rate of perhaps 140. Then next day set the new bike up to equal where possible the measurments taken from the old and send him out keeping the same distance & heart rate. Time over the 10km will tell you how good the bike is at doing 10km time trials at Dunc Grey.

Now we can start making some claims... However this is going to tell you how the bike preforms on Dunc Grey, won't tell you how it climbs, sprints, comfort over a long ride.

Might be easier just to say it climbs like a mountain goat and desends like a... a... I don't know what...

I assume that the times listed are in hours and minutes.

Given that, you are talking about an improvement of about 7%, which is considerable.

It is hard to say that a bike is better, as a quick example, the first time I went through the National Park on the Cervelo, I took 4 minutes off my best time, but that is over a 3 hour ride.

As far as bike improvement, I know that the Cervelo (and the Pinarello) both descended better than the old Cannondale that I had. I always joked that when descending on the Cannondale, it felt like you would fall off if someone standing at the side of the road sneezed at the wrong time. The Newer bikes felt like there was no limit to how fast you can take the corners.

Given that there was no scientific testing done, you can easily dismiss the conclusion from the article. Ideally, it should be done double blind, but with something like a bike, that is pretty difficult.

James

Why so concerned? Don't want to spend the money?

Newer equipment is definitely faster, not value for money, but definitely faster. This is how I see it for example deep carbon wheels cost over twice as much as low profile wheels. You pay anything from $2500 to $5000 for a good quality set of 50mm carbon rimmed wheels. They are more aerodynamic and cut through the wind, beautiful for time trialling but the value is lost if your the kind of rider who doesn't do any work and just sits at the back of the bunch. You can build up a set of wheels with the same hubs and less aerodynamic rims for a third of the price.

So are they quicker? definitely. Do they give you an advantage? Yes. are they worth the money? The simple answer is no, not at an advantage vs cost ratio. But it really depends how much money you have to spend, because they do give you an advantage.

How many watts does it take to be 7% faster?

Does the new bike save that many watts?

How many watts does it take to be 7% faster?

7% more watts if climbing at minimal air resistance speed.

But it does bring in a good way to do an experiment to resolve this issue. One can put an electric motor with controllable power output and use it to drive two test bikes. Maybe it's one for the mythbusters.

But it does bring in a good way to do an experiment to resolve this issue. One can put an electric motor with controllable power output and use it to drive two test bikes. Maybe it's one for the mythbusters.

Or you could just give both bikes to Jens Voigt to ride. Whichever one takes longer before it breaks is the better one.

Why so concerned? Don't want to spend the money?

Newer equipment is definitely faster, not value for money, but definitely faster. This is how I see it for example deep carbon wheels cost over twice as much as low profile wheels. You pay anything from $2500 to $5000 for a good quality set of 50mm carbon rimmed wheels. They are more aerodynamic and cut through the wind, beautiful for time trialling but the value is lost if your the kind of rider who doesn't do any work and just sits at the back of the bunch. You can build up a set of wheels with the same hubs and less aerodynamic rims for a third of the price.

So are they quicker? definitely. Do they give you an advantage? Yes. are they worth the money? The simple answer is no, not at an advantage vs cost ratio. But it really depends how much money you have to spend, because they do give you an advantage.

I think this is a different thing, as it relates to full on racing wheels. The example from Ride was a standard 1992 road bike with standard road wheels (can't remember offhand maybe Open4cd's?) versus a standard 2008 road bike with ksyrium or similar wheels. And the claim was a nine minute improvement. So no argument at all that newer kit is faster, but I thought not by that amount.

And no I wouldn't want to spend the money! In 1992 a $3,500-$4,000 bike really was better than a $1,000 bike. Significantly faster, lighter and nicer to ride. I have a sneaking suspicion a good $2k bike today would not be significantly inferior to an $8k bike - the gap between bottom and top end has closed in the past 16 years. Even 105 is 20 speed.

Cheers,
Alan W

well i have to say that my race wheels on the veledrom really make me alot faster, i dont know if wheels were included in this deal, and i dont know how much of my change is the extra 40 psi in of air either, but i seriosly was alot faster on new wheels. I could hardly ballance on rollers they were spinning so fast at first!! took me the whole session, this is after id dont rollers two nights before on normal wheels!!

fenn_paddler wrote:

I reckon a RIDE story on DHBC and associated bikes would be a good read. Although "here is my fixie that cost $200 all up" mightn't sell too many new $7k bikes!

My bike will be featured in the October edition of "Shop till you Drop". Does that count? Although I suspect it was more about the Parisian model, even if I have asked them to credit the shoot as "bike by DHBC".

My bike will be featured in the October edition of "Shop till you Drop". Does that count? Although I suspect it was more about the Parisian model, even if I have asked them to credit the shoot as "bike by DHBC".

The Parisian model? Please explain?